Mike Johnson cites "irreconcilable differences" to explain his difficulties
But it's the conference that might sue for divorce
It’s old news that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has a tough time running the House. His margin for error is tiny, and there often isn’t sufficient consensus among party members to pass even uncontroversial things.
During a recent brouhaha over the sale of ethanol fuel blends he made it clear exactly what the problem is: “You had requests and demands on opposite sides of the conference that were literally irreconcilable.”
Republicans in recent years
Of course this is nothing new for Republican leadership this century. John Boehner’s speakership cratered because of intra-party divisions, and Paul Ryan’s tenure was barely noteworthy largely for the same reason. And both of those speakers had significantly healthier majorities than Johnson has or his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, ever had.
Going back a little further, Dennis Hastert is generally not given the credit he deserves for the success he had passing the GOP agenda during his speakership (1999-2007), even though his majorities were slimmer than Boehner’s or Ryan’s. Of course his reputation was tarnished by scandals that came to light after he left the House, which just might explain the lack of kudos coming his way.
Nancy Pelosi, too, had a great deal of success as Speaker, and not just when she had healthy majorities during her first stint (2007-2011), but also when the margins were slimmer when she took the reins again from 2019-2023.
The reality is that Johnson’s task today, like it was for McCarthy, appears nearly impossible insofar as he tries ram through what most of his members and the president want.
Having irreconcilable differences is hardly unprecedented — and it can be managed
It’s nothing new for parties in American politics to have acute internal tensions. In fact it’s more the norm.
The New Deal coalition that gave Democrats reliable congressional majorities (especially in the House) through most of the middle decades of the 20th century up to the early ‘90s was always ridden with stark differences on major policy matters — civil rights, cultural issues, even defense.
But deft leaders found a way to manage the situation. They employed three techniques: compromise, scaled back expectations, and securing Republican votes. Maybe you couldn’t always get what the majority of the caucus wanted, but the payoff from figuring out a way to muddle through was worth it: by keeping the coalition together you maintained control of the chamber and, on top of that, got half-a-loaf with the possibility down the road to get more of the rest.
For Johnson, the problem is that his president and many in his party aren’t content with compromise and have a deep aversion to working with Democrats. But those stances amount to beating your head against the wall. As the rank and file get more and more frustrated with Johnson (“this guy has divided us with a smile”) the likelihood of a move to depose another speaker increases. Of course it’s a fantasy to think there is anyone else out there who has the magical powers required to get everyone on the same page.
There is another way, however unlikely it seems
There are a lot of other legislatures in the United States — 50 to be exact. With 99 chambers (Nebraska is unicameral). It would be impossible to count how many times over the years upper and lower bodies across the country proved impossible to move in a unified way behind a particular agenda.
And it’s surprising how many times party majorities were unable to get their way in the simple task of electing a speaker or the leader of the state senate. But somehow rational people find a way.
It’s not rocket science; the key is to identify a compromise candidate who can secure a bipartisan majority. A few examples:
In 2005 the Republican majority-Tennessee Senate voted for a palatable Democrat to lead the chamber.
In 2008 the Louisiana House — Democrat-majority at the time — selected a Republican speaker.
In 2009 the person elected House speaker in Tennessee, Republican Kent Williams, received a total of one vote from his party — his own. That along with all the Democrats gave him a slim majority.
There are several other similar instances over just the last 35 years or so (see cite from Ballotpedia above).
What’s the lesson?
What some state legislators apparently recognized is that a two-party system invariably entails interesting and diverse coalitions, and that figuring out a way to muddle forward on a bipartisan basis is sometimes better than stalemate. This solution either hasn’t dawned on anybody on Capitol Hill yet or it just isn’t more appealing than the chaotic status quo.
But most important is to understand the paradox inherent in our two-party system: you win the majority because the coalition has major policy differences. Whether it’s the few moderates in the GOP or the Democratic blue dogs, these representatives comprise the difference between majority and minority status. The true believers don’t like it, but the only alternative is languishing in the minority.
The key is to realize that compromise, scaled back expectations, and bipartisanship is the only reasonable approach to managing a diverse coalition. What’s more is that it might even be politically viable if you try hard enough.